A few Dunstan residents raised several concerns regarding the town’s proposed Dunstan Village Residential Zoning District during the Town Council’s public hearing last Wednesday.

Most of those who spoke also met with the council a week before to detail their feelings on the town’s proposal. They reiterated their concerns, telling the council they felt that the zone change allowed for too many units.

The new zone, also called the DVR, changes the zone of 140 acres owned by John and Elliott Chamberlain from RF to R2, which will allow up to 240 units. In addition, it contains bonus provisions for the preservation of open space and affordable housing, which would allow an additional 48 units.

Peter Angis said the Town Council should listen to what residents want, and said they do not want a 288-unit development.

“Get closer to 200. I know it would make me and a lot of other people happier,” agreed Beth Conceison.

The Chamberlains filed suit against the town after voters in a 2003 referendum overturned their proposed 397-unit subdivision, which was approved by the Town Council under a contract zone. The Chamberlains argued that, among other things, the town’s zoning for their property was inconsistent with its comprehensive plan.

In February a judge agreed and ordered the town to submit a proposal to the court by May 31. The DVR is the town’s response and while it will be formally adopted on June 1, officials said the court would allow the additional day to the deadline.

Another concern regarding the plan was the possible sewering of the property; something that Scarborough resident Ace Holton feels should be required.

The DVR contains specifications if the property is sewered or not. For a sewered property, a single-family lot would require 5,000 square feet, a two-family lot 7,500 square feet, and a multiplex 15,000 square feet. The minimum lot specifications for sewer-less property is 20,000 square feet for a single family, 40,000 square feet for a two-family and 40,000 square feet for a multiplex.

Scarborough Assistant Town Planner Dan Bacon said the town offers sewered and unsewered options for all of its zoning because it does not feel it necessary to force developers to sewer. However, in order to take advantage of the DVR’s higher density requirements, sewer would have to be installed.

Elliott Chamberlain could not provide an exact figure as to how much it would cost to sewer the property, but said it will cost millions. Excluding the developer’s cost for installing the sewer, the Scarborough Sanitary District will charge $325 per 1,000 feet of pipe and $7,500 per unit for the sewer extension. The developers also would have to pay a capacity reserve fee of $2,150 per unit.

Elliott Chamberlain reiterated his previous comments that the minimums allowed under the DVR, including lot size and road width, are just minimums. They allow for a denser development and also provide some flexibility during construction. Not every lot or road will be the minimum size, he added.

John Chamberlain said they had developed a proposal that reflected the comprehensive plan and said this entire process, including the lawsuit, would not have been necessary if the Town Council had changed the zoning to reflect what was in the comprehensive plan.

“All we were doing from the very beginning was giving this town specifically what they asked for in the comprehensive plan,” he said.

DVR opponents said the process of adopting the new zone was moving too fast and asked if a postponement of the council’s June 1 vote was possible. Town Council Chairman Jeffrey Messer said that was unlikely and the Chamberlains would probably not agree to it.

Another public hearing is scheduled for the next Town Council meeting, Wednesday, June 1, at 7:30 p.m. at Town Hall, because a map also must be included in the proposal, which it was not last week.

The judge has not ruled on the other counts of the lawsuit because the Chamberlains asked him to first rule on the comprehensive plan issue. That leaves one of the Chamberlains’ other complaints in the suit – questioning the legality of the referendum – has not been decided. The Chamberlains can decide to continue with the other complaints, said Scarborough town attorney Chris Vaniotis.

But even if the judge ruled that the referendum was legal, it will not affect the zoning change. The zoning change is being prompted by his decision that that comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances are inconsistent, said Vaniotis.

“The task before the council … is to come up with something that is consistent with the comprehensive plan,” he said. “Looking at what the planning staff came up with here seems to be arguably consistent with the comprehensive plan.”

If the council’s decision is overturned by a citizen-initiated referendum, then Vaniotis suspects the Chamberlains would move forward with the current litigation or bring a new suit.

The possible end result of the suit moving forward could be the judge voiding the zoning for the area, as was hinted at in the February decision. The same could occur if the council does not submit a plan to the court. If the judge does void the zoning, Scarborough residents will not be able to question the decision.